Good points. Agreed.

Certainly you pinpoint one way to approach the problem. Terms like “objective, fair, neutral” are the aims of the professional rules (or regulative principles), and they do work more or less to that effect. But nobody thinks they’re absolutes that can be perfectly satisfied. These ideals have limited scope. They only deal with the conduct of the scientist as scientist, and not the scientist as moralist. And surely, professional norms should not curb one’s moral duties, like speaking out on vital issues.

But as Woody suggested, that might not be enough. If we just talk about general moral principles (and not specific professional commitments), then while we’ve settled upon something that seems fine in the abstract, we’re also setting ourselves up in such a way that we depend on the courage of moral mavericks that happen to be scientists. That would seem to be too weak to be practical.

Okay, hopefully to clarify, I agree with what Trevor wrote here:

“For scientists, I think it is important that their right (as human beings like anyone else) to speak out in support or opposition to any policy they wish. However, it would seem unethical for them to claim that “science” supports policy X or policy Y, in some objective sense.”

and with what Trevor wrote here:

“Dr. Hansen the scientist is not the same person as Mr. Hansen the advocate. As long as people remember that distinction, then is there still an ethical dilemma left?”

Science is value-neutral. But scientists are not. I agree with Trevor that we have to make distinctions between the science and the advocacy.

I also don’t think it’s a professional duty, as I understand you to have put it, for ALL scientists to become advocates; but I think there might very well be a moral duty, in certain cases – let’s take a scientist for example who believes critical values are at stake politically and who is a good communicator to non-scientific audiences (obviously, not all scientists are).

Here we have a well-informed person with an understanding of the issue, a moral commitment to the issue, and an ability to communicate. Does that person then have a moral obligation to take a public stand?

I am wondering what do we mean by scientists being ‘objective, fair and neutral’ when it comes to policy where they believe that critical values are at stake.

What does that mean in practice? Specifically, how does being ‘objective, fair and neutral’ play out in politics, which in practice is usually none of those? I think it is great to strive to be objective, fair and neutral, but not if we take it to mean that scientists are ethically bound to muzzle themselves while mining companies feel free to engage in devastating the environment by mountaintopping, the fishing industry feels free to fish species to extinction, and religious groups feel free to claim that homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ and can be ‘cured.’

When does claiming to be ‘objective, neutral and fair’ mean — in practice – permitting injustices?

To my mind ideas about objectivity, neutrality and fairness sometimes do seem to conflict with ideas about justice:

“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” — Elie Wiesel

Thanks to all on this thread for this thought-provoking discussion.

My intention was not to imply that his post was lacking substance; rather, I was just pointing out that the other posts that I didn’t respond to were all quite interesting. On the contrary, I thought MadScientist’s post was thought-provoking and worth discussing further (hence my reply).

I think MadScientist’s point was entrenched in his professional experiences, which are quite serious even if they’re not the norm. So I would disagree with your characterization of his post as lacking substance.

I think my question was a bit too broad. Let me try to reign my worries in a little bit.

I think that scientists are successful at avoiding overlap by focusing on primary professional goals. So, we might talk about the scientist qua scientist, as Trevor does. And he makes for a pretty powerful argument. As a question of professional standards, we want to be able to look at our scientists as objective, fair, and neutral.

If we mean to say that activism is permissible to — or, as Philip says, necessary to — what you do as a scientist, then how do we give our due to Trevor’s point? Is there something to being a scientist qua scientist, a special clause in the contract, that says, “it is your professional duty to advocate this-and-that policy”?

Do you think that the industries clearing the oceans of fish like locusts are sitting around wondering what the “ethics” of their actions are, or whether advocating for the right to kill the last fish for sushi is worried about their lack of impartiality??? How about the corporations that destroy forests or rip the tops off of mountains?? Are those who benefit from these acts sitting around gazing at their navels wondering if it is “ethical”? Do you think that the big oil companies and their delusional denialist abetters are worried about an appearance of impropriety as they go about their evil work???

But that’s okay. When the oceans are empty, the forests destroyed and the environment is all but dead, you can hold your head up high, because you, as scientists, lived up to standards of “professional ethics.” Because, after all, your feelings are more important than silly stuff like the environment…